In
early January 2017, Defendant A. B. Price, Jr., attempted to
plead nolo contendere to two counts of sexual battery, and
Defendant Victor Sims attempted to plead guilty to three
counts of aggravated assault.[1] Both Defendants had reached plea
bargains with the State, and each of the pleas included a
term of probation. The trial court declined to accept the
pleas and requested the parties to return for a later hearing
to present proof and argument regarding the constitutionality
of certain portions of the Public Safety Act of 2016
("the PSA"), which has the practical effect of
authorizing the Tennessee Department of Correction
("DOC") to address at least some probation
violations, a role up to this point reserved exclusively to
trial courts.[2] After the hearing, the trial court ruled
portions of the PSA facially unconstitutional on grounds of
separation of powers, due process, and equal protection. The
trial court subsequently accepted the Defendants' pleas
and inserted in each judgment the following special
condition: "The probated portion of the Defendant's
sentence is not subject to the Public Safety Act; rather, the
Defendant shall be subject to the rules and regulations
governing probation applicable through pre-existing law (law
in effect prior to January 1, 2017)." The State
appealed, and the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the
trial court's judgments. We granted the State's
application for permission to appeal. We hold that the
constitutionality of the PSA provisions at issue was not ripe
for consideration by the trial court. Accordingly, we reverse
the judgments of the trial court and the Court of Criminal
Appeals. We remand this matter to the trial court for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Defendant
A. B. Price, Jr., was charged with two counts of sexual
battery, each offense alleged to have occurred in the spring
of 2015. Defendant Price and the State reached a plea bargain
calling for Defendant Price to plead nolo contendere to both
charges with consecutive sentences of five years to be served
on supervised probation.

Defendant
Victor Sims was charged with three counts of attempt to
commit first degree murder, all offenses alleged to have
occurred on or about July 8, 2016. Defendant Sims and the
State reached a plea bargain calling for Defendant Sims to
plead guilty to three counts of aggravated assault with
concurrent sentences of eight years, suspended to supervised
probation after service of one year in confinement.

Both
Defendants sought to enter their negotiated pleas in early
January 2017. Before accepting the pleas, the trial court,
sua sponte, expressed concern about the provisions
of the PSA that became applicable on January 1, 2017, and
that could impact the administration of the probated portions
of the Defendants' sentences. Apparently without any
request from either party, the trial court requested the
parties to return at a later date to offer proof and argument
regarding potential constitutional issues with the PSA
including whether the PSA violated the separation of powers
doctrine and whether it violated the Defendants' due
process and equal protection rights.

On
February 10, 2017, the trial court heard testimony from a
probation officer based in Henry County and also heard
argument from the prosecutor, the attorney representing
Defendant Price, and the attorney representing Defendant
Sims. Counsel for the Defendants both argued that the
provisions of the PSA calling for the DOC to impose graduated
sanctions on probationers committing certain violations were
facially unconstitutional.[3] The prosecutor disagreed. On February
16, 2017, only six days after the hearing, the trial court
filed a forty-four page document titled "Conclusions of
Law and Order" in which it concluded that provisions of
the PSA applicable to probation violations were facially
unconstitutional. The trial court's order included the
following:

The decision reached in these cases will leave in effect the
statutory process shared by judges and probation officers for
the management of alleged violations of probation which
pre-existed January 1, 2017.

Judgments entered in these cases and in future similar cases
shall incorporate the holdings herein by reference as a
special condition, pending appellate review.

On
March 13, 2017, the trial court held plea hearings on the
Defendants' cases and accepted the negotiated pleas. On
each of the Defendants' respective judgment orders, the
trial court included as a special condition the following:
"The probated portion of the Defendant's sentence is
not subject to the Public Safety Act; rather, the Defendant
shall be subject to the rules and regulations governing
probation applicable through preexisting law (law in effect
prior to January 1, 2017)."

The
State appealed on the basis of the special condition and the
underlying determination by the trial court that the PSA was,
at least in part, facially unconstitutional. On review, the
Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court's
judgments, with one judge dissenting. State v.
Price, No. W2017-00677-CCA-R3-CD, 2018 WL 3934213, at
*17-18 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 14, 2018), perm. app.
granted (Tenn. Dec. 5, 2018). We granted the State's
application for permission to appeal.

Standard
of Review

Because
we are considering only questions of law in this appeal, our
review is de novo with no presumption of correctness afforded
to the conclusions reached below. See State v.
Daniel, 552 S.W.3d 832, 835 (Tenn. 2018).

Analysis

Probation
and the PSA

Prior
to the PSA, a probation officer confronted with a probationer
who was violating the terms of her probation could seek a
probation violation warrant from a judge and then prosecute
the warrant before a judge in an evidentiary hearing. The
probationer was entitled to contest the allegations and was
entitled to be represented by counsel. If, based upon the
preponderance of the evidence, the trial court concluded that
the probationer had violated the conditions of her probation,
the trial court was authorized to determine the appropriate
remedy, up to and including revoking the probationer's
suspended sentence and ordering the probationer to complete
all or a portion of her remaining sentence in confinement. In
short, both the determination of probation violations and the
imposition of punishments for established violations were
left to the trial court. If the trial court revoked the
probationer's probation, the probationer had the right to
appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals. See
generally Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-311 (2014 &
Supp. 2018).

(a) The [DOC] shall adopt a single system of graduated
sanctions for violations of the conditions of [probation].
The system shall set forth a menu of presumptive sanctions
for the most common types of [probation] violations,
including, but not limited to: failure to report; failure to
pay fines and fees; failure to participate in a required
program or service; failure to complete community service;
and failure to refrain from the use of alcohol or controlled
substances. The system of sanctions shall take into account
factors such as the severity of the current violation, the
supervised individual's previous criminal record, the
number and severity of any previous supervision violations,
the supervised individual's assessed risk level, and the
extent to which graduated sanctions were imposed for previous
violations. The system shall also define positive
reinforcements that supervised individuals will receive for
compliance with conditions of [probation]. The system shall
clearly specify as to each type of sanction whether the
supervised individual has the option to object and seek
administrative review of the sanction.

(b) The [DOC] shall establish by policy an administrative
process to review and approve or reject, prior to imposition,
graduated sanctions that deviate from those prescribed.

(c) The [DOC] shall establish by policy an administrative
process to review graduated sanctions contested by supervised
individuals under [Tennessee Code Annotated section]
40-28-305. The review shall be conducted by the chief
supervision officer, who shall be impartial and trained to
hear ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.